Letters: Balboa Park plan

In response to “Walk in the park” (Opinion, July 1): Bruce Coons, the executive director of Save our Heritage Organisation, has it right about Balboa Park (“A historic mistake”) and his request that the City Council demonstrate leadership and fiscal responsibility on July 9 by rejecting the Plaza de Panama plan, as designed. – Tom Brady, La Jolla

Letters and commentary policy

The U-T welcomes and encourages community dialogue on important public matters. Please visit this page for more details on our letters and commentaries policy.

“Time to act” (Opinion, July 1) correctly suggests making the park more accessible to pedestrians. Then it goes off the deep end with that often-promoted false premise that the heart of the park was for the exclusive use of pedestrians.

The western approach was built back in 1914 for cars to pass through the two plazas from a marketing standpoint – being able to preview the plazas whether in a tour bus or auto. The main problem is parking in the Plaza de Panama with cars circling around looking for a space to park. Both the Park’s Master Plan and precise plan address that by removing parking in that plaza. The plan’s designers also rejected a bypass bridge.

Removing parking from the Plaza de Panama will free up over 80 percent of the plaza. Although there have been no auto/pedestrian conflicts resulting in death, this will eliminate the majority of those conflicts. The Plaza de Panama project, however, would create more dangerous conflicts both at the juncture of the bypass bridge and in the Alcazar drop-off and handicapped parking lot. The project is fiscally irresponsible as its maintenance would be added to the park’s $240 million already in arrears. – Jarvis Ross, San Diego

Any way this one is sliced, it does not pass the smell test.

The scene: A lame-duck mayor and a wealthy private citizen hold an off-the-record meeting and decide that what is good for Balboa Park and their friends must be good for everyone.

The ploy: Cut 56 parking slots from in front of the art museum, plus solve the “pedestrian/car” problem by eliminating all traffic from the Plaza de Panama, therefore “restoring” it to its 1915 design parameters.

The method: Cut and paste a clumsy right-turn bridge off the east end of the Cabrillo/Sixth Avenue park entrance, routing cars past the Alcazar Gardens down a slope into a tunnel that leads to a parking structure holding 600 or so vehicles for those who wish to use it at an estimated $10 to $15 per visit to one’s favorite museum, theater or dining concession. Nearly 400,000 cubic yards of dirt will be moved elsewhere and thousands of tons of concrete will be poured to create the hardscape to accomplish what is proposed as the “restoration” of the Prado. Preliminary costs are set at about $45 million for the physical changes with another $16 [million] to $20 million for the bond-financed parking facility.

Selling it: A series of shameless, one-sided community forums were held, along with workshops and other make-nice events. Mayoral staff, Balboa Park boards, concessionaires and other related “stakeholders” were urged to get behind the proposal because it might be our best chance ever to “do something” about a perceived problem. Outsiders who were not on board were given short shrift as a result.

The upshot: The public process was circumvented, opposition squelched, the City Council Memo Of Understanding with the project team was declared illegal and cannot be reviewed. The massive EIR (Environmental Impact Report) was both obfuscating and critical as well as praiseful of the plan. It could not be more twisted.

All that aside, I, as an equally private citizen, resent this brazen attempt drastically alter the appearance and historic essence of – guess what – my park. The trade-off for this gigantic, permanent blemish – guess what – a mini-park atop a three-story garage I neither need nor can afford.

Bruce Coons of SOHO is absolutely correct in his contention that the proposed bypass bridge would deface the historic western entrance to Balboa Park forever. Parking in the Plaza de Panama could be eliminated in two days by simply re-striping the pavement.

It’s not right for such a momentous decision to be made by the council alone. This should be put to a public vote. Let the people decide how their tax dollars are to be spent, or in this case, wasted. – Roger L. Conlee, San Diego

I agree with Welton Jones’ assertion that we don’t want or need to “build big stuff like new bridges” to celebrate the centennial of Balboa Park (“Aerial trams among ideas for anniversary celebration”). What we do need is to take care of what we already have.

Several features of the park are in need of restoration, repair and maintenance. This would be the greatest gift to the people of San Diego. I fear, as Bruce Coons pointed out, that we may be celebrating the centennial of a city landmark that we no longer recognize.

Sure, lets get rid of the parking spaces in front of the Museum of Art and create a public space, but let’s be smart and learn from previous generations past mistakes and not make radical changes that we will regret in years to come. – Marshall Williams, Hillcrest

Having lived in San Diego since 1946, I believe I have as much regard for our landmarks as Mr. Bruce Coons. I respect his efforts to preserve our civic heritage. But I feel his latest opinion piece was over the top (“A historic mistake,” Opinion, July 1).

Minimally, the statement, “The Cabrillo Bridge and Laurel Street entrance to Balboa Park is San Diego’s most iconic image,” is arguable. Mr. Coons is clearly an absolutist. In his essay he so constantly resorts to hyperbole that he crosses the line from persuasion to propaganda. – Bill Southwell, Mission Hills

Mr. Coons’ article was a hysterical mistake. The exaggeration and obvious shrill tone of his comments belie genuine criticism of the proposed changes to Balboa Park offered by a generous benefactor and approved by the Balboa Park committee. Ergo: A freeway ramp will “crash” into the Laurel Street Bridge; sever the mesa in half; the project is a “nightmare”; “radical elective surgery”; it “would seriously damage the economic vitality of the city and region.” Wow! Should I get out now?

Are you kidding me? Mr. Coons demonstrates a remarkable ossification of thought and imagination. Plus, he seems to think that the proposed project is immune from the sophistication of architectural blend and modern landscape design. I walk through Balboa Park and the Plaza de Panama four to five times per week. Right now it resembles Lindbergh Field or the neighborhood elementary school at the morning drop-off. This is the “historic heritage” Mr. Coons is in favor of retaining? He offers no plan, no ideas, just an intransigence out of step with most people in San Diego. Forward is a philosophy as well as a direction. Careful, flexible, practical stewardship is also a philosophy. One that the people of San Diego should demand of their leaders as change is made so the past is preserved. To freeze time and age-related deferred maintenance – well, that’s wrong. – Don Vaughn, San Diego

Proponents of the Plaza de Panama project talk about removing cars from the heart of Balboa Park, yet they propose an ugly and expensive bypass bridge dedicated to keeping those cars there indefinitely. They ignore a simple and inexpensive alternative that really would remove the cars, that really would transform the core of the park.

Imagine the Cabrillo Bridge filled with people, not cars. Imagine it as a grand public space along with the rest of the Prado. Reclaiming the bridge for pedestrians would achieve the important goals of the proposed project but would create a hugely more rewarding park experience for generations of San Diegans and visitors. In the words of Mike Kelly of the Committee of One Hundred, “Crossing the Cabrillo Bridge by foot, bicycle, stroller, wheelchair, or tram will be a magical experience highlighted in every guidebook to San Diego.”

And it could be done tomorrow. Some other components of the proposed project would still be needed (in modified form) to ensure adequate parking and disabled access, but pedestrianizing the Cabrillo Bridge would require a tiny fraction of the time and expense projected for building the bypass.

The museums’ fears that closing the bridge would create access problems are absurd. Visitors who want to park near the museums would simply plan their trips to use Park Boulevard, something they’d likely do anyway to avoid the proposed bypass road. And a supplemental parking structure could be built at the west end that would make pedestrian access across the bridge convenient and fun.

The people of San Diego don’t want a bypass bridge in their park. A plan that instead includes closing the Cabrillo Bridge would be accepted with relatively little controversy. I hope that Dr. Jacobs will reconsider his disastrous plan and instead offer us something that truly enhances our park. – Ron Sinnen, University Heights

Regardless of one’s position on the current Plaza de Panama controversy, Bruce Coons’ reliance on extreme hyperbolic language throughout his argument (“A historic mistake,” Opinion, July 1) ironically weakens any value in publishing his position.

Throughout the essay, Coons uses alarmist language that insults the intelligence of any open-minded reader that would otherwise lend a receptive ear to his reasoning. Using phrases like, “crash through the Cabrillo Bridge,” “sever the central mesa in half with a giant ditch,” and to seriously suggest that “San Diego would be left with a ravaged, unrecognizable Balboa Park” brings laughter instead of any serious concern that might otherwise be thoughtfully engendered with more careful, considered writing.

Coons continues that proposed changes would “seriously damage the economic vitality of the city and region.” Really? At his most ridiculous, Coons suggests that San Diego risks its image to the world being one of “ugly and aggressive use of concrete and a total disregard for arts and culture.” This last statement is an incredible insult to not only every San Diegan directly involved in arts and culture, but indeed each of us who participate in the cultural San Diego that reaches far and wide beyond the Cabrillo Bridge.

As a neutral reader who enjoys all of the position writing on this decision making, I am both disappointed and amused that as the lead voice of the opposition, Coons stooped to fear-mongering and frenzy-whipping instead of information. – Mike Clarken, Ocean Beach

I spent most of my youth in Balboa Park. I lived close enough to drop into the park on a summer morning and surface just in time for dinner. At that time the zoo was free for kids and tourists were a rarity. Thus your editorial page on changes in the park was close to my heart.

The proposed changes have some things I would love. No more traffic through the plaza and more handicap parking are legitimate goals. However the addition of that much concrete in the park reminds me of how proud we were with the freeway that went through the Lily Pond and destroyed the horse trails.

So I must look to the bottom signatures and see just who is in favor and who is not. Solar Turbines has been with us for a long time, but it is not what I would consider a beauty spot for San Diego. The U-T former editor is probably very concerned with the beauty of the park, but then the old Union-Tribune has been a contributor to the look we now have in Mission Valley. And finally the former president of San Diego Gas & Electric is defiantly not someone I would want making decisions that would affect the beauty around me.

On the flip side we have Bruce Coons. Anyone who tunes into programs about old and historic San Diego is familiar with Bruce and his work. I must admit that I put him into the group that includes Kate Sessions and George Marston. These citizens have done more for San Diego, and in particular Balboa Park, then all the bridge builders and concrete suppliers in California. I consider advice from Bruce Coons to be wise and it would surely be seconded by both Kate Sessions and George Marston. – Gerald Martin, Escondido

As a proud San Diegan I strongly support the Plaza de Panama project and think it presents the best opportunity in decades to restore a great public space in Balboa Park from its debasement into a common parking lot and return it to its original use and splendor.

As an architect and planner I’m intensely aware that the opportunity to create or restore grand public spaces are extremely rare. I’m especially bothered by the argument that this project should be opposed on historical preservation grounds. The integrity of the place that was the Plaza de Panama was lost long ago. The current proposal is a unique opportunity to regain one of San Diego’s most historic and important places. To reject such an opportunity based on an argument of historic preservation only adds insult to the injury of what has been lost.

With support from generous donors, and no tax dollars, Balboa Park can be vastly better place for today’s and future residents and guests o San Diego.

I urge the City Council to approve the Plaza de Panama project. – Robert Schulz, El Cajon

In “Will They Ever Finish Bruckner Boulevard?,” architecture critic Ada Louise Huxtable had great fun ridiculing the claims of historic preservationists. She skewers Plymouth Village, Williamsburg, Fraunces Tavern and Sturbridge Village [Editor's note: Huxtable wrote for The New York Times; the book referenced was a 1970 collection of her reviews.] As I remember her article, the gist of her attack was “it wasn’t like that at all.” She concluded one of her harangues by saying “you can’t go home again.” She mocked the many versions of Mount Vernon at filling stations in Maryland. I was so impressed by Huxtable’s satire that I wrote her a letter asking what she would think of Balboa Park, which she never answered.

As originally designed by assistant architects Carleton M. Winslow and Frank P. Allen, Jr., Balboa Park in 1915, when the California Pacific Exposition was held, was part fantasy and part entertainment. Except for master architect Bertram Goodhue’s contribution, the buildings were stage sets, with something from here and there assembled together in mock-ups that had little to do with historical buildings in Spain and Mexico from which parts were put together without regard for their use on the historical context in which the buildings and their owners played a prominent role. But, in spite of jaded critics like Huxtable and myself, temporary and permanent buildings were instant successes. Many attempts were made to demolish the temporary structures, which were made of flimsy materials and lacked foundations.

The juxtaposition of buildings along El Prado, the exposition’s main avenue, was noteworthy. Design critics at the time praised the way in which architects endeavored to bring the main buildings into harmony. The roofline of many buildings, in a similar revivalist Spanish-Mexican style, picked up accents from other buildings. Turrets and towers echoed one another even when they borrowed ideas from towers in minarets in North Africa. What the ensemble seemed to create was an imaginary rather than a historical setting and visitors responded with appreciation. It was all a “let’s pretend” response and people who had never been to Spain or Mexico enjoyed putting themselves into an artificial environment. By some magic, Spanish and Mexican themes became an architectural rage in Southern California which were amplified in countless instantly created cities, in movies, and in pageants that were held in Santa Barbara and elsewhere in Southern California. San Diego meanwhile had returned to reality with a thump when newcomer and promoter Louis J. Wilde took on the exposition establishment in his campaigns for mayor in 1917 and 1919. I say “establishment,” for the exposition was conceived by Gilbert Aubrey Davidson, a banker and president of the Chamber of Commerce, and [it] turned into a profitable enterprise because of the cooperation of mogul John D. Spreckels, who saw in the exposition a way to get his business going.

There was undoubtedly an element of conservatism in the minds of upper-middle-class San Diego citizens when they were offended by Wilde’s proclamations in favor of smokestacks and who wanted to keep geraniums blooming in their genteel city by the sea. As people grow older they tend to think the past was magical and forget some of the hardships in their personal and civic lives. So it was in San Diego. Gertrude Gilbert, who was in charge of music programs at the 1915 and 1916 expositions, took on the role of being the conscience and consciousness of the city. Through her efforts, though with cash contributions from a federal government that was then spending money to stimulate a drooping economy, prominent structures on El Prado were granted an extension of their lives which came to an end in the 1960s when buildings on east and west sides of the San Diego Museum of Art were replaced with modern-looking buildings that served the purposes of their tenants for a long, long time, and destroyed the balance and harmony that the old buildings had created. There was no organized historic preservation in San Diego at the time so it was easy to undertake the demolition of the former Science and Education and Home Economy Buildings. I confess I don’t know what I would have done. When faced with the loss of Rembrandt’s portrait of St. Bartholomew would I have accepted the plain utilitarian box that houses it that goes by the name of Timken Gallery of Art?

Fast forward to 2012 when the city is getting ready for a 2015 celebration of the centenary of the Panama-California Exposition, which I regard as the third greatest event in San Diego history after the founding of Mission San Diego de Alcala in 1769 and the purchase of 960 acres in downtown San Diego by Alonzo Horton in 1867. The U.S. Navy came to San Diego as a byproduct of the 1915 exposition with the inducements of Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin D. Roosevelt and of Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels.

Now in 2012 a benefactor, Dr. Irwin Jacobs, has emerged who is willing to restore the Plaza de Panama to something resembling its appearances and uses during San Diego’s 1915 and 1916 and 1935 and 1936 expositions. While one delves into his motives, it probably can be said he has the vanity that is part of the human predicament. To complete his plan – or, if you will, vision – he wants to get rid of automobile traffic and parking along El Prado and its appendages by putting a bypass ramp on the southeast end of Cabrillo Bridge from which automobile traffic would pass through the Alcazar Garden Parking Lot and a small portion at the edge of Palm Canyon and come out at the north end of a parking structure south of the existing Spreckels Organ Pavilion. The historic preservation section of the Department of the Interior requires that all new additions to what they deem to be “historic” structures be in a style that could not he taken to be part of the original historic fabric. Taking into consideration these requirements, engineers appointed by Dr. Jacobs have designed a Centennial Bridge and road that are true to the materials they are made of and that, unlike the 1915 buildings, do not pretend to be something they are not. A new San Our Heritage Organisation in San Diego has opposed the new bridge, which it claims would be the worst or second or third worst thing that has ever happened to Balboa Park. (SOHO keeps changing its animadversions.) To foster its aims, SOHO got from the Washington bureau of the National Park Service a letter which contains the following astonishing sentence:

“The NPS also questions whether complete removal of vehicular traffic is realistic and whether removal of all traffic is even in keeping with historic patterns of use.” (Letter to Kevin Faulconer from Stephanie Toothman, May 2, 2012.)

As Huxtable (also Thomas Wolfe) said, “You can’t go home again.” There is no way we can restore the rambles, gardens and pergolas that were the backyard of the 1915 exposition. Even if we tried the Department of the Interior would admonish us we are violating their rules. So now Bruce Coons, who is the leaders of San Diego’s SOHO, is claiming the professional city planners hired by Dr. Jacobs are destroying parts of Balboa Park and of San Diego’s heritage. SOHO has created a monster with whom they doing a battle which at times resembles the battle of Armageddon in Revelations. They have gotten some of well-known environmental and civic groups in the city to back them, groups that have a partiality to rhetoric and easy solutions, and they have managed to play on the fears of San Diego citizens. “You would have to pay for parking.” I come from a beach community on the East Coast where outsiders have to pay $25 a day to park on its best beaches and locals $11. The city (Gloucester, Mass.) uses this money to pay for essential services and to repair yearly damage to its shoreline caused by winter storms in the North Atlantic.

SOHO got the Department of the Interior to declare a large swath of Balboa Park to be a National Historic District on Dec. 22, 1977. What is entailed in being a Historic District is subject to debate and ambiguity of interpretation. Suffice it to say it means as Humpty Dumpty said to Alice in “Alice Through the Looking Glass,” just “what I choose it to mean. neither more nor less.”

It is difficult to see how Plazas de Panama and California and a pedestrian extension of the Plaza de Panama toward the Spreckels Organ Pavilion are going to damage the central mesa of Balboa Park, but SOHO claims because of a tinkering with the west boundary of the exposition proper San Diegans will bemoan the spoilage for the foreseeable future. Like Disneyland, like Tivoli Gardens in Demark, El Prado and its plazas are theater. It is the main stage on which the great events of the exposition took place. What is behind the buildings that face it and give it its charm are the backstage where tools and props are stored. The dream and the magic takes place when one crosses the footlights. SOHO has yet to learn that magic and history are in the people’s minds and they are happy to leave it there. What is left are the replenishment of nostalgia and the incredible sadness that take place when the lights are out and the treasures are packed up and taken away. – Richard W. Amero, Chula Vista